An Englishman in New England

. . .I've got it.

The movie had no loss. Any of you remember the teaser trailers for this? The slogan ran along the lines of "There can be no victory without loss. . .there can be no triumph without sacrifice.", etc. interspersed with some really moving scenes of anguish and bravery. The true stem of my excitement was to see which of my heroes would have the grit and courage to sacrifice their lives to give the little halflings that extra slim chance of success.

In the end, **SPOILER ALERT** everyone gets out of Armageddon on Middle-Earth without a scratch. Honestly, the only characters that died were Gollum (and who misses him? ), and the King of Rohan. Who was a guy called Bernard. How can we the audience truly feel the emotional highs of our heroes' victories if we never taste the despair of their defeats?

I can't level this criticism at Peter Jackson, though. Pete is a man who for the last 4 years has been dangling his balls over a razor wire of criticism and expectations, a wire strung up by 'Rings geeks champing at the bit to pounce on him for this skipped part and that altered dialogue. No doubt, the man's remains would be scattered to the four corners of the earth if harm were to come to a single one of Legolas' goldilocks.

Which brings me to the question. Having never read the books, does this mean that the ending is the same in Tolkien's tomes? Why wouldn't a man of his storytelling subtlety realize that the price of victory against such malevolent and overwhelming odds be the blood of the valiant?

Answers in 3000 words or less, double-spaced, 12 point font by tomorrow, please class. . .